Jump to content

User talk:Sfacets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.55.204.182 (talk) at 16:14, 22 March 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:AMA alerts

(I will answer most posts on this page.)
I reserve the right to tidy up, format, edit, and yes, even delete messy, disorganised, spurious or insulting messages.

User:Davedonohue

Sfacets, sorry about my iPhone article modification mistake. I was trying to illustrate how contentious the discussion around that one had gotten, and should have used the Sandbox. Thanks for your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davedonohue (talk • contribs)

No, I should apologize, I noticed after that you had reverted your edit, so there was no real reason to post a warning... I have removed it from your talk page accordingly. Sfacets 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please use four tildes ~~~~ to sign your comments, thanks!

No worries, and done re: the signature Davedonohue 04:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Davedonohue[reply]

RfC at Steven Hassan article

Hello Sfacets. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at my RfC at Steven Hassan? Thanks much. Tanaats 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you are still watching the convoluted discussion at the RfC at Steven Hassan, so I thought I'd ask directly. What do you think of my compromise offer? Thanks Tanaats 05:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The compromise was accepted. Thanks much for your participation. Tanaats 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON News.net

Why do you keep taking it out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random108 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(Replied on user's talk) Sfacets 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogani Article - Question Regarding Sources

Hi Sfacets. I had a question regarding sources that I was hoping you might be able to help me out with. Yogani has recently done three radio interviews and is scheduled for three more this month, the soonest one being Sunday. There is plenty of information in the interviews, which have been archived and are available for streaming or download at http://www.aypsite.com/audio.html, so they can be verified. The interviews have been conducted on a talk radio show in Cincinnati (1360 WSAI [1]) called "Yoga - The Other 98 Percent", and simultaneously broadcast live on the internet. I was originally going to use these as sources in the article as there is plenty of information there, but the closest I could find to a radio interview in the Wikipedia guidelines for sources was for video. Do archived radio interviews qualify as sources, so long as the information referenced is contained within the interviews, or would I run into a problem again due to the archives being hosted on the AYP site? Thanks for your help and have a great day. Mdyogi 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks Sfacets, your help is appreciated. I'm gonna get on it now. Mdyogi 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Ayyavazhi. The whole body of articles need a lot of copyediting. I wanted to ask you a question. How do you populate a category that doesn't exist yet? I have this article and others I could add. Thanks again, NinaOdell | Talk 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a valid source on the basis of history

hi there

I have been into yoga since 23 years and really feel that the need of a practical guide (not only theoretical) makes the article a better one. I found the website very elaborate and detailed in its explanation. I believe it should be restored.. would like to know your opinion on this matey. And the reason for removal was very vague IMO.

regards mark —The preceding Man on a Mission comment was added by Wisdomking (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I appreciate your honesty and straightforwardness

hi matey 

  I understand your position very well and really appreciate your attitude.

The website does have very relevant information hithertho unmentioned in the article - the reason I added it. You have a nice week.

regards mark —The preceding Man on a Mission comment was added by Wisdomking (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent edit to Swaminarayan Sampraday (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yoga

I reverted the you reinsertion of the blog link (emzr.com). found it is a wide scale spam campaign by an adsense publisher. see User_talk:Wisdomking. blogs are normaly avoided any way, as the majority are scrapped content as this blog was. a comparison is emzr.com scrapped content vs Mumbai Mirror's article by Bharat Thakur --Hu12 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to WikiProject Spam

If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 17:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Vandalism

Can we enact the same protection on the Shikshapatri & Vachanamrut pages? Any mention of BAPS is being erased left and right. I didn't know users could be this hostile and unwilling to tolerate a neutral POV! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moksha88 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Swaminarayan Sampraday

Is there supposed to be an article at Swaminarayan Sampraday? A Ramachandran 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's just that there seems to be something there now. Seems there was an article under the redirect that has been resurrected. Is that what was intended? If not, perhaps it should be deleted to give a clean start? Check the history, there's been a bit of back and forth between the redirect and the old article there.... A Ramachandran 00:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your offer of help with the YGS page

Hi, thanks for the note on A Ramachandran's talk page. The YGS page has gone through enormous edit warring and conflicts in the past, due to editors with conflicts of interest in opposition. I've spent a great deal of time in early 2006 working on that page, so a huge amount of material is already available in the history. Here's an old diff with a LOT of information on YGS, albeit not formatted very well. Perhaps you can look this over and help me cull the information from here which can be used to formulate a cogent and unbiased article? Thanks in advance! Hamsacharya dan 23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think the conflict of interest is not a problem, and will be watching the article... I have doubts myself. Have you looked through the edit history? There has been a large amount of edit warring in the past, and Hamsacharya dan seems to have been one of the warring parties. The older versions are rather unencyclopedic: adoring and promotional... A Ramachandran 23:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all true. I took a break from wikipedia for the last 8 months or so - I'm not interested in arguing or wasting time warring on here any longer. I know that even if I win, I've lost because of all the wasted time. I already tried nominating the article for deletion, when I found that an unbiased article would be very difficult to create given the warring. That failed at that time. If you two will support me in an AfD, then perhaps this article can be deleted, and I wont have to think any more about the next time someone tries to vandalize it. As it is, 3rd party publications in magazines about YGS are sparse - there are few articles from the US and abroad on YGS that I can call upon at this time. Please review these briefly to see if they are viable sources, considering that many of them are interviews with or contain quotes from YGS himself. 

  1. article in Yogi Times magazine [2]
  2. article in Awareness Magazine [3]
  3. article in Life Positive Journal (not available online at this time)
  4. column in LA Yoga magazine
  5. article in the Aspectarian [4]
  6. Chandigarh Tribune [5]
  7. newspaper clipping from an Indian newspaper from the 1970's (not online)
  8. certificate of merit from a primary school in India. (not online)

Thanks, --Hamsacharya dan 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator III

Please see this evidence connecting Terminator III with indef blocked user NoToFrauds. A Ramachandran 02:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

astalavista.box.sk

nice work sherlock, you could even read the site advisors text or go to astalavista to check the basis of my warning before you deleted my warning. (i know because it was edited back faster than i could write my oneliner of reasons to astalavista.box.sk talk page.) --Zache 06:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's elementary, my dear Watson... Sfacets 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heide Fittkau-Garthe

Hi Sfacets,

I removed the references to the Heide Fittkau-Garthe mass suicide story because the story only concerns initial charges made and there is no record I can find anywhere of any subsequent convictions. However I have found plenty of references to Heide Fittkau-Garthe being released without charges.

Please read the following references and let me know what you think... [6] [7] [8] [9].

I realise that the above links are probably not considered reputable sources, though I could be mistaken. However there is a brief mention in www.time.com, which is at least as reputable as the existing reference, of Heide being released on bail [10]. If she was really guilty of such serious charges, especially including children, then I doubt very much that she would ever be released on bail.

I suggest that the story is not notable unless we can find a better reference that something really did happen and it wasn't, as suggested by the various reports cited above, just a concocted tip-off made up by a relative of a member of her group.

Generally, the law in democratic countries considers people innocent until proven guilty. I would hope Wikipedia articles would aim to follow a similar ethical code.

Thanks and regards, Bksimonb 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've raised the issue in the Cult discussion page [11] since that is the most active of the pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bksimonb (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume II, Issue 1 - January 2007

Project News
  • Project tagging:After a brief edit war over the addition of {{WP India}} to ancient archaeological sites now located in Pakistan, a "pre" parameter was introduced to remove the ROI flag from the template for pre-1947 articles, following discussion. After another large discussion on ANI alleging that the automated tagging by Ganeshbot and LostBot was "nationalistic", Ganeshbot was briefly blocked. Currently, the bots are again in action.
  • Swastika on Hinduism templates:Recently, an extremely large and at times emotional debate broke out regarding the use of the swastika on Hinduism templates, given its association with Nazism. As a result, {{Hindu Links}} now contains an educational message about the use of the swastika, as discussion on a more permanent resolution continues.
What's New?
Congratulations to all contributors
who helped to develop the above
content to represent the best of Wikipedia!
Need some help?

Are you stuck at a point where admin help is needed? There are 21 Indian Administrators in Wikipedia at the last count. If you need some help with anything related to WikiProject India, they are just a couple of clicks away!

Complete To Do List
Note from Editor's Desk
  • Weekly Collaboration (Shortcut:WP:INCOTW): Collaboration of the Week has fallen from its once high feats. Please drop by and help rejuvenate it.
  • As before, we'd like to stress, this is your newsletter, and we want you to be part of it as well. Provide us with news tips. It can be anything related to the project, from discussions to calls for help, and other interesting stuff within our community. Sponsored content for recruitments within your WikiProject sub-groups are also welcome, including requests for copyediting, photographic work, peer review, etc. We'll be very happy to include them here.
  • Before we sign off, Happy New Year, everyone.
This edition special
  • Translation Department: Can you read and write any languages of India? Do you know multiple languages and are looking to keep your skills at a high level or improve them? If so, the Translation Depeartment may be for you!

The translation department of the India WikiProject aims to utilize high-quality non-English material related to India for the goals of the project. This includes both translating articles from and to other-language Wikipedias as well as assisting contributors with non-English sources. The department aims to provide services in transliteration, formulating scripts for various languages, as well as translating articles from one language to another and validating sources in other languages to that of the encyclopedia article. If you are looking for a friendly translator here is your go-to point. Currently, we are still seeking representation for Kashmiri, Nepali, Oriya, Sindhi and Tulu, as well as reinforcements in all other languages.

Signed...

Edited by YellowMonkey and distributed by Lostintherush

You are receiving this newsletter because you are part of Wikiproject India. If you'd like to change your subscription options, please say so at the Outreach Dept.

If you run a covert newsroom operation, provide us with ur news tips here.


Moderation

Mind doing a little moderation on the Reggaeton page? The title shouldn't have been changed in the first place, especially without consensus. If anything you should change it back to the way it had appeared for years (without the accent) and then open discussion to where a consensus can be reached before it would be edited. I know more about that genre than anyone on wikipedia and have been maintaining that article since it went up, what's being done to it is vandalism, plain and simple.

Jinabhai Vasanji

There is an article titled "Jinabhai Vasanji." This is inaccurate as this was not his name upon becoming a sadhu (ascetic). Once someone becomes an ascetic, they renounce their former identity, and in the case of the Swaminarayan faith, Yogiji Maharaj was his name, not Jinabhai Vasanji. How do I go about changing a title?
Moksha88 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia ni Cristo

While you're trying to delete the email links, you've also deleted the External links section header. Could you fix it? --wL<speak·check·chill> 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are 3 subsections which were under that header, pro, con and other. So they look out of place without that External links header. --wL<speak·check·chill> 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BAPS

Why is there a link to the Swaminarayan Sampraday on the BAPS page? Both faiths have its differences and are only united by the Swaminarayan name. Moksha88 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand why the BAPS page has to have a link to the Swaminarayan Sampraday page. Could you please explain to me the justification? Moksha88 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the Swaminarayan Sampraday page should have a BAPS link. Moksha88 06:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed...another day, another edit war! I've already added it back, so we'll see what comes next... Moksha88 07:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"...spin-off from the original Swaminarayan sect"

The two phrases in the BAPS article were just now removed by me because they are clearly pointed. The first one emphasizes the fact that Shastriji Maharaj, the founder of BAPS, was excommunicated and forced to leave; however, he left and was then excommunicated.

"Shastriji Maharaj- who separated from the original sect in order to propagate what he saw as the true philosophy of the Faith"

As for the second phrase, it depicts Shastriji Maharaj as radical in the sense that he did what he wanted to do without regard to scriptures or God. He left because Vadtal was becoming unsafe for him to stay there. Acharya Laxmiprasadji, the head of the Vadtal, refused to rebuke the hostile saints due to his grudge against Shastriji Maharaj. Why? As a seven-year old, he disliked a sermon given to him once on good conduct by Shastriji Maharaj.

I am not trying to turn into one of the fiery, radical anonymous vandals, but there are some facts that go unstated. Again, I will continue to work within the rules established by Wikipedia, and these statements are in hopes of demeriting BAPS. Moksha88 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cpsriv.jpg

I've makrd an image you uploaded Image:Cpsriv.jpg, as "fair use disputed". You may not be aware of current Wikipedia practices, but images of living people rarely qualify for fair use because they can (theoretically) be replaced with free versions. Since the subject has made several public appearances lately, and since videos of his appearnaces show many people taking pictures of him, there's less justification for using a copyrighted photo. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. A relevant counterexample includes:

  • A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.

Since there's no assertion that this photo is itslef newsworthy it would not qualify for fair use. See also the essay Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people. -Will Beback · † · 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dagadtrikon.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dagadtrikon.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Spamming

I apologize for spamming and will stop. I am going to re-add my Review of the live performance of Kyle Cease however. This link was approved by Kyle and is also promoted in his myspace blog. I will NOT add any additional links to Wikipedia.

Again, I am sorry.

Chase Roper —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.168.87.166 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC meeting

The mediator has proposed an IRC meeting. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga. -Will Beback · † · 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Copyvio ELs

What is your proof that "Adishakti.org" violates copyrights? I see you're removing many links to their websites, such as here: [12] Don't tell me that you're claiming to have created all the photos and drawings yourself. -Will Beback · † · 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have ripped a CD that the SY organisation holds copyrights to, and are making the tracks available for download on their website, in each of the articles I removed links to. Sfacets 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we know this? Which pages host the purported violations? -Will Beback · † · 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links I removed directed to the pages in quesion. Sfacets 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
At least one of the links you removed was to a PDF. Again, how do we know that the material is in violation of copyright? How can we verify this? -Will Beback · † · 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could try contacting someone via the sahajayoga.org website. Which link was to the pdf file? Sfacets 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Until such time as you can proivide evidence of the copyright violations, I am restoring the links. -Will Beback · † · 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at [13] clearly the editor ripped the CD and is distributing the content. Sfacets 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And how do we know that the material is in violation of copyrights? -Will Beback · † · 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the mere fact that he has ripped the CD and is distributing the content is copyright infringement. Sfacets 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's only copyright infringement if the CD was copyrighted. You have the burden of proof to show that these are definititively copyvios. So far you haven't done so. -Will Beback · † · 02:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The music, like photos is automatically copyrighted to the artist, unless provisions are stated to the contrary. It is therefore up to you to prove that the songs are not copyrighted. Sfacets 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who holds the copyrights. We don't know that they the website hasn't received permission. You have not demonstrated any evidence that these are copyvios. You have shown that you have a dislike for the website and the group that it represents. That makes it hard to believe you are acting in good faith. Especially when you add copyright violations yourself. -Will Beback · † · 06:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith or bad faith, the fact remains that an individual is not allowed to reproduce a CD without express permission of the copyright holder. Can you prove that the webmaster has obtained permission to copy and distribute the media? Sfacets 08:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't know who the copyright holder is. It could have been the friend who sent it to him. Wikipedia does not have proof of copyright permission for every image and article that it links to. The presumption is that the website holds the copyright. If you can provide proof otherwise please do. Otherwise don't use Wikipedia as the battleground for a vendetta against that group. -Will Beback · † · 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be absurd, I'm not using wikipedia as a 'battleground'. Even if the author of the media in question did share the music, he/she still maintains copyright (copyright is not transmitted with the media - the media is for personal use only), and the website adishakti.org is in breach of this copyright by illegally distributing copies. Sfacets 08:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Its not absurd to say that you and Sahajhist have removed links to that website numerous times, and that you have made off-line negative comments about them. As for the links, how do you know that the performers didn't grant permission? How do we know that there is a copyright violation? -Will Beback · † · 09:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Define "off-line negative comments"? As I mentionned above, only the artist has the right to distribute his/her content - in this case (as shown by " i will be uploading all 8 tracks onto every page of www.adishakti.org") it is clearly not the artist distributing the files. Sfacets 11:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm referring to your posted comments on the AdiShakti Yahoo group. As for the links there's no evidence that the artists haven't given their permission. Using the same logic we should remove virtually every external link from Wikipedia, since we can't be sure that the webmasters were the creators of their material, or that they received permission from the copyright owners. That standard would certainly apply to every SY link, plus about 20 milion others. Again, if you have no proof, don't delete the links. -Will Beback · † · 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to US copyright law -

"it is a direct violation of copyright laws to upload music to a Web site, even with a legally purchased music cd. Unless you have the express written consent of the owner, you could face a monetary lawsuit and criminal charges

. Can you provide evidence of such a written consent? Sfacets 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to ask that website. Until we have proof that they are violating copyright there is no more reason to assume that they are than there is reason to assume that every SY website is illegally hosting photos of Shri Mataji. The burden of proof is on you, since you are making the assertion of a copyright violation. -Will Beback · † · 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't provided any proof that the links are copyvios, I'm going to revert your deletions. Please don't delete them again until you have some actual evidence of copyright violations. And please clean up your own copyright violations (below). -Will Beback · † · 04:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You unilaterally deleted numerous links from a group with which you have a conflict, I discussed it with you extensively, and now you accuse me of acting arbitrarily? I think that you're confusing the two of us. You are more than welcome to seek an "uninterested third party to mediate". Meanwhile please stop deleting these links. -Will Beback · † · 12:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that every time I suggest ou do something (eg supply evidence, start an RFC) you throw it back at me? Are you unable to do it yourself? Sfacets 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You're the one who wants to remove the informaiton, therefore the burden of proof is on you. -Will Beback · † · 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting the tags on Image:Dharamsala map.gif. The site has a clear copyright notice, and the uploader claims "permission". That being the case why isn't the {permission} tag appropriate? -Will Beback · † · 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already removed on 'DB' tag as well. Any reason why it shouldn't be deleted immediately? -Will Beback · † · 02:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are apparently so concerned about copyrights, how come you haven't yet deleted this improperly licensed image? -Will Beback · † · 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image replaced with self-created one. Sfacets 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Self-created? This appears to be another instance in which you claim the work of others as your own. You can't simply make a small cange and claim it as your own. -Will Beback · † · 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Small change? It's completely different. Your continued ridiculous assertions that I claim the work of others as my own are absurd. Sfacets 01:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The version I saw before must have been left in the cache. I acknowledge that you have finally, and after much prompting, fixed this problem. Thank you. -Will Beback · † · 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category Rename

According to Webster Dictionary, the definition of sect is as follows.

1 a: a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical

Can we rename "Swaminarayan sect" to "Swaminarayan" faith or something a little less polar? Swaminarayan Hinduism, of all groups, does not fit the above definition. Moksha88 09:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is only one definition, the other is " a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader" and "A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice." (American heritage Dictionary) Sect is a lot less pejorative than say 'cult', for example. In this case it would be considered a sub group of Hinduism, and sect would be a good descriptor, faith connotes that it is a major standalone religion that has no afiliations with any other major organised religion. Sfacets 11:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Offshoot

Please refrain from continuously adding " is an off-shoot of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya" to the BAPS page - unless you have a source to prove this? It is doing nothing more than disruptig edits. Sfacets 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haribhagat"

Yes, i have a source (one of an un-biased scholar - Raymond Brady Williams who wrote an Introduction into Swaminarayan Hinduism) In his book he writes that Yagnapurush(the saint who is the founder of BAPS) left the Swaminarayan Sampradaya(the original sect set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan) to set up his own organisation(BAPS). He was originally of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and then left to create BAPS, so i think it makes BAPS an off-shoot. Please inform me if the terminology is different.

Also in the same book it states that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is the sect set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan. I think this discussion stemmed from the see also link in the respective sects pages. My edit was to add information to the side of the see also link. I still believe by adding the information it is improving the quality as it is making users aware that this link (ie BAPS is an off-shoot from the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and Swaminarayan Sampradaya is the sect set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan). Also i was considering the fact of adding the off-shoot information to the BAPS article but after this reaction i decided to wait and get the views of others.

Haribhagat 15:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bhagwan Swaminarayan

On the talk page, i have presented views on how to improve the article and have had backings from users. I would like to request if you can review my comments on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan talk page and then confirm if i could go ahead and add this additional information under guidance. My idea is to add a small section which states that Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up and led a sect by the name of Swaminarayan Sampradaya. I will await your reply.

Haribhagat 15:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page i have fully explained myself and backed up with a third party reference, legal document and scriptural reference. You are disputing a succession which is clear and direct just like the monarchy of a country. I will be reverting your version, i urge you to review the talk page. Also it does seem that as moksha88 has been requesting you for help that you have been more inclined towards his edits, i hope this is not the case. Succession dispute should not arise as it is clear and baps successorship claim is an interpretation and i have proven this on many a occassion on the talk page. Please do read all the comments on the talk page. Let me know what is considered as a accepted reference as at this moment in time ou do not seem to be accepting a third party reference, legal document nor scriptural reference. BAPS has a section on the page under the correct title i believe let me know what you think is wrong with my edit.

Haribhagat 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of founders of world religions‎;

Would you discuss on the talk page before deleting stuff , particularly if your edit summary does not support your action. For instance you deleted Scientology arguing that its not a major religion , yet the article is about world religions not about major religions.--CltFn 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Regarding Scientology, there is discussion already in progress on the talk page. (which I mentionned in my edit summary). If a (potentially) minor religion such as Scientology were to be included, then many many other groups would have to be included as well, which is why it is vital to ascertain that Scientology has a substantial following. Sfacets 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well accordint to this source, it is is listed as a major religion. --CltFn 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cease

Good Afternoon!

There seems to be some controversy surrounding a link to a review of one of the artists live shows. I followed through on my end to NOT add anymore links to my blog and I completely understand and acknowledge that I was inadvertently spamming. I am very fond of Wikipedia and do not want to contribute to spam. That being said, the link to this review is the only review of this artist's work and, as I've stated before, is shared directly in his own Myspace Blog. Several wikipedia users have come to read this review and then clicked out of my blog to the Artist's Myspace profile or Amazon.com where they can purchase his work. Again, I am going to include this link and request that it stop being removed as it is an entirely relevant and useful resource.

crazy 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmic Writers template

I see you have at least started the process of nominating this for deletion. Good. Categories can fulfill the same purpose. I was removing it from the articles of writers not listed on it, but I will stop so more opinions can be registered in the deletion discussion. IPSOS (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Reggaeton

A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page, see WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks. Khoikhoi 07:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's better now. Khoikhoi 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for preserving the content on the Reggaeton talk page. In years of editing wikipedia, I have never seen such a blatant disregard of this site's rules. I recognize that you posting doesn't mean you agree or disagree, I just appreciate that you don't edit out of spite. On a sidenote, where on wikipedia can someone report an admin for abuse? 65.0.105.137 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Abuse

Seriously, where do you report an admin? Someone edited the Reggaeton article by removing the continents it became popular on, and by completely deleting a section complete with citations that has been up for at least a year. I restore the deleted info, and immediately KhoiKhoi and another contributor revert it to the vandalized version. I'm not even making personal attacks or anything, these guys are power tripping hard. 65.0.105.98 08:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MQM

if mqm is not a target organization then please remove this from the mqm page "MQM is infamous for its frequent involvment in "terrorist activities" although its leaders routinely deny such accusations. International organizations such as the UNHCR and the United States Department of State have cited examples of MQM's involvement in terrorism, especially within Karachi, Pakistan's commercial center".7day 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't referred to as a "terrorist organisation" by those various entities, only that it wasn't a target in the WOT. Sfacets 13:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


"Henna Page Network" link deletion

I wanted to explain my reasons for removing the "HennaPage Network" link. The owners of the site are cybersquatting on the name "HennaPage" and have done so for a number of years. Their original Website is http://www.tattoo-me.com. The site is owned by Approx Cosmetics. The owners of Approx have a long history of conflicts with the owner of http://www.hennapage.com and a number of other online henna sites over their habit of stealing other's files and republishing them under their own name. The disputes ended with the owner of Approx and one of his assistants being banned from using the Henna Page forum, after which they set up HennaPage.net, attempting to copy to "look and feel" of Hennapage.com as it was at that time, and setting up a forum of their own as part of Hennapage.net. Their forum, which was never a success, has since been closed and the site exists only as a display area for pictures of work done by Approx and to announce their coming events.

I deleted the link because I saw no informational value in what is strictly a commercial site and because the owners are making unethical use of another site's name in order to lift their own poor reputation among online henna artists.

I will accept your judgment on the matter, but I wanted to make clear my reasons for the deletion.49oxen 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see this page about mascara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mascara —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.15.77.84 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Vishnuforms.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vishnuforms.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggaetón

I’m positive that you read the discussion, since your presence there (including your numeric alias) could not be missed. There was an agreement that the article would resume under the name “reggaeton” provided that the first word have the accent followed by the statement that the diacritic was optional. If you did not read that, please do so and do not revert the change again, it is unprofessional and inconsiderate. --Noé Æ 02:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read the discussion, which focused on the document title. This is a completely different issue. Sfacets 03:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a completely different issue, re-read the discussion page again. I’ve also gone ahead and removed your additional information on the words frequency, it has already been established that both spellings are used in English. If you want to talk about frequency that’s an entire different section where you’d have to talk about etymology and publications that utilise the spellings. In the future there will be such a section, but for now let the reader know that both spellings are correct regardless of which one is used more often. If you seriously disagree then add a comment in the discussion page, in which we can all leave some feedback. Thanks. --Noé Æ 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User potters house

Hi, I'm sure sure if you can help but I noticed that you were checking on the potters house article the other day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Potter%27s_House The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house has in the last week created several more potters house articles. Is he allowed to do this <?>, I'm not sure but since we are having so much trouble editing the first potters house article all these might follow suit. How many of the same church can he do? All up he has 9. Original 3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fellowship_Ministries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayman_Mitchell

Newly added by same user potters house:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Potter%27s_House_Lismore - created 24 feb 07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vicary - created 26 feb 07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship_Australia - created 26 feb 07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Potter%27s_House_Newcastle - created 26 feb 07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Potter%27s_House_Tweed_Heads - created 26 feb 07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Warner - 2 march 2007

Darrenss 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual churches and biographies of individual people. I suppose the Catholic, Anglican, AOG, Baptist churches are all only permitted to have one page? I mean check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican Shall I delete the list at the bottom of that page?Darrenss is not into contributing to wikipedia but in slandering the Potter's House. For whatever reason is irrelivant here, but just look through his history, all he seems to do is attack me and cause trouble. He is not trying to aid or help, but attempting to degrade two aspects of wikipedia, the Potter's House articles and the testimony of someone who activly contributes. Potters house 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following me around. I'm allowed to ask someone for advice, you are harrassing me. Darrenss 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darrenss, yes the user is allowed to do so, as long as the articles are 1) Notable and 2) Neutral. If the articles are notable on their own they can remain as separate articles, or need to be merged into the main Potter's House Christian Fellowship article. It is imperative for such (or any article) to have reliable sources however, as far as I could make out several sources used both on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship article and subpages fail Wikipedia's stance on reliable sources, having few or no third party sources and quite a few sources which are considered unreliable, such as links to usergroup discussions, which are expressly 'forbidden' as sources. Sfacets 12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I had stated before in the Potters House Christian Fellowship Talk, I expected the Yahoo group link to be taken off a while back but no one bothered with it. Yet Darrenss wants the inclusion of two other yahoo links that are in opposition with the Church. I am glad you redirected Christian Fellowship Ministries to the main page, I was trying to figure out how to do that just today.

Most of the Potter's House pages I have recently created are only new and will be sourced very soon. It must be understood, some churches have thousands of people in it, some only 100, some hardly any at all, but the main article is about the fellowship as a whole (i.e. 1400 churches in a fellowship), much like having an article on soccer, where the main information of the game is explained in detail on one page, but individual clubs, leagues etc, deserve their own page. It is not like an article on Wal Mart where there is not much color in saying "The East L.A. Wal Mart differs from the Detroit Wal Mart" but there are distinct things that can only be made mention of if individual pages are made. The Tuscon Church for example has had drive by shootings, is run by a man who is in a wheelchair, has started 100's of churches across the globe, has it's own yearly conference etc. I think that the Potter's House page could be simlified if other regions were added. I intend on taking most of the info about the Australian Fellowship off the main site and onto the Australian one. Anyway, Cheers. Any ideas are appreciated. Potters house 13:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Removal of Links on Lismore page is understandable. I am glad that you tool the link from the revial Centre off also. Perhaps a page entitled "Churches in Lismore" would be helpfull there. What about the link to the "Church of the Holy Smoke" is that bias, not accusing you as it can be easily overlooked, but just wondering. Potters house 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, good job on the tables, cheers! Potters house 13:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Jagruti

I noticed that you, like me, have been busy removing linkspam from the editor(s) adding links to this non-notable-but-oft-cited-on-wikipedia group. Till date I have traced these additions to User:Anit.pimple, and IPs User:59.182.35.123, User:59.94.176.122, User:59.95.9.29, User:59.182.98.34, User:59.161.8.191 User:210.212.172.217, User:203.199.48.200. Do you think there is any point in CheckUsering them or even blacklisting the site in wikipedia ? Abecedare 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that these editors not only add links to the "External Links" section of the article, but often complete sections that push a POV and reference the HJS website. See for instance diff 1, diff 2. Abecedare 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got most of the links used as external links, however as you say, there is probably more content which should be removed. Judging by the IP ranges you gave above, there are probably a number of distinct editors editing the article, although it is possible that the user has used different computers to make his/her edits. It would be hard to pin the edits on these IP adresses, a request for the website to be blacklisted may be easier - I was looking at that option earlier, in fact, but had already removed a sizable amount of links, and didn't want to push the issue - however it appears from what you are telling me that this is an organised attempt at promoting the website/movement (or perhaps the same user using sockpuppets), and may meet the criteria for blacklisting... Perhaps it is a good idea to go ahead with it, since it is probable that these users will attempt to re-insert the links/content. Sfacets 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at these users contributions and tried to undo their HJS-related/POV-pushing edits (i.e. almost 100% of their mainspace edits!). Will keep a lookout for future activities too.
I don't know how to go about getting a site blacklisted on wikipedia or what the criterion is; but if you do initiate the process, just let me know and I'll be glad to support and add evidence. Abecedare 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It apparently is the same person, who also is the spokesperson for HJS; see CheckUser. Abecedare 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I did not find it was a bad editing since it was a way to help people to find others informations about this particular subject. The point is then, what is a good external link?

A good external link is neutral, informative, and contains reliable, valid information not already found in the article. Hindu Jagruti is a (some might say) extreme movement which is definitely non-neutral, and does not supply information on the full picture of the subject. For more information on what makes an external link a good external link, please read WP:EL... Sfacets 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

non-POV

Is there a way to report or flag users who continue to be non-POV? What is Wikipedia's policy on this type of activity? Thanks for the help. Moksha88 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay

You did not sign your comment there. JoshuaZ 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chakras

Thank you for clearing up what you meant by POV. I've _left out_ the references to the chakra by the other names but restored what the chakra dealt with, what it is blocked by and its location as all are stated in the show and are necessary to understand the rest of the section. Like explaining why Aang is laying out his grief, etc.

Or without

  • "Located in the center of the forehead, the sixth Chakra, Light, is responsible for insight, and is blocked by illusion. The Guru explains that the greatest illusion is one of separation, for seemingly separate and different things are actually one and the same."

all that's left is

  • "Aang mentions the Four Nations, and Pathik tells him that everyone is part of "One People, yet we live as separate people." He goes on to explain that even metal is simply Earth that has been purified and refined."

which doesn't even mention the chakras. Cherries Jubilee 05:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Both you and me have tried to work with Haribhagat on the Swaminarayan article, and time and time again, he continues to engage me in philosophical debate. Is there anything that can be done to deal with his disruptiveness? It's a bit difficult to work with somebody who is too driven by their views to understand NPOV. Moksha88 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sig

Hi I saw your signature recently and there was no link in it to your user page , which makes contacting you a little more hassle than it needs to be. It also breaks a few vote counting Bots. Is it possible to add a link? GameKeeper 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sfacets 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya Yoga page

Hey there. I remember a while ago we were discussing format for the Kriya Yoga page, and you were mentioning that you were supporting keeping the page as a purely "Lahiri Mahasaya" lineage related page. I thought about that a lot, and it seemed to make sense. The only thing that bothered me was the way the disambiguation section was structured, so I recently set up an alternative. This was just reverted by an anonymous user. I was wondering if you could review these last couple edits, and let me know if you support my disambiguation structure? I'm not going to get into a "revert war" situation, so I'd like to see if you and other non-POV editors approve of my edit so that I can try to get some support for this format.

I feel that this format is the best way to appease those who wish to add encyclopedic entries about kriya yoga without disrupting the current page structure for the "popularly known" form, but who don't feel that they should be clumped into the "kriya" disambigi. If you get a chance, please let me know what you think, and we can discuss. Peace. --Hamsacharya dan 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Personal Attack

Information icon Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. This is your last warning. Further attacks will be reported. Sfacets 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound weird, but thanks for the warning. I will keep that in mind. Also, if you could help me out with another user who is engaged in personal attacks against me, I would appreciate it. Wiki Raja 06:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem ;) I would be glad to keep an eye out for you - which user are you referring to? Sfacets 07:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The user is Vandh in which he made a personal attack on me here. Wiki Raja 09:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking?

I couldn't understand the meaning of your message on my talk page. Where have I accused you of votestacking? - Aksi_great (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Looks like you got a bit mixed up. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I had confused Wikiraja's talkpage for mine (since there is a mirrored discussion going on there and here) and mistook earlier comments by you for comments directed at me... sorry again.

Votestacking

I saw your messages in the user talk pages of Aksi_great (talk · contribs) and Gnanapiti (talk · contribs). While you were in in User_talk:Wiki_Raja page responding to his message, perhaps you thought the messages written here as the messages written to you. Just my guess :-). Neither Aksi_great nor Gnanapiti have accused you for Votestacking anywhere. Thanks. - KNM Talk 07:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, how embarrasing, (please see my answer above) - going to fiy myself some coffee, that should help ;) Please accept my apologies, Sfacets 08:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, happens to me all the time. Especially when I use IE. :-) Gnanapiti 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INCOTW

You voted for Lal Bahadur Shastri, this week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMY and Vijayante Edits

Sfacets, a fine job of policing this article. I have notified Crum135 that Vijayante has not modified his pattern of editing. Here is what he said: "A clear pattern of reversions against consensus, lack of collaboration, and general tendentious editing is considered disruptive editing and can be blocked for disruption. If you see such a clear and consistent pattern, please let me know (with full diffs), and I will block again. One does not have to violate 3RR to be disruptive. You may also wish to notify the editor a priori about this, as our goal is not to entrap people but to guide them in the right direction." I have so notified Vijayante both on their talk page and the article talk, and informed them that one more disruptive edit will result in editors taking the action above. --Dseer 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
This means that you have reverted an article four or more times in a 24-hour period.
Here are the offending reverts: 1 2 3 4
You are welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia when 24 hours have elapsed.

ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sfacets (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

One of the edits was not to the same content. Also, reverting vandalism doesn't count towards the 3RR - attempts to "talk it out" failed because other party refused to participate in discussions.

Decline reason:

I am sorry, but WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not explains "Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." I have accidentally violated the 3RR rule the same way, I did not get blocked for it, but I was admonished. You are a good editor, but this block seems valid. Since blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, if you give me your word that you will refrain from reverting anything on that page until atleast 06:03, March 14, 2007(when your block would expire), I will unblock you. — HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I think I can manage that :) Getting blocked is annoying because I was also right in the middle of large scale edits to another article ... Anyhow thanks for the unblock, I will give the article a break for some time and let other editors give their opinions as well. Sfacets 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a 3RR warning myself. Good luck. I agree with the lack of participation and I think we need to find a strong admin to help, I doubt the disruptive pattern will change. --Dseer 07:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I explained how the edits reverted were not vandalism, user understood. User promised not to do any reverts on the page Maharishi Mahesh Yogi till 06:03, March 14, 2007(when the block would have expired). Block is no longer preventative, unblocking.

Request handled by: HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category

Could we rename the category from "Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism" to "Swaminarayan faith of Hinduism" or merely "Swaminarayan Hinduism"? Sect has the connotation of a radical faction which would be NPOV. Moksha88 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My changes to Internet Phenomena

Why have you reverted the edits I made to the page? They are both well known internet phenomena and both feature their own wikipedia articles, what could be better?
Seraphim Whipp 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are only acceptable if they are accompanied by reliable sources. Having their own Wikipedia article isn't a criteria for inclusion, since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source within Wikipedia. Have the memes had media coverage? Sfacets 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn straight! Lol, don't worry, I found reliable references.
Seraphim Whipp 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block evasion

He's back again: NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) aka TroyVaughn (talk · contribs) aka Terminator III (talk · contribs) aka Hamsacharya_duh (talk · contribs) aka Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs) aka Juan dela Cruz (talk · contribs) aka Akal Purakh (talk · contribs) is back as Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs)... I'm trying to establish a checkuser [14], but I'm having trouble because its been more than 30 days between the last sockpuppet. Not sure what they need. Any tips? --Hamsacharya dan 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the 'Code letter' to "A" - since this is really a continuation of the other request... Hopefully this reasoning will be enough, otherwise I'm sure we can come up with something... Sfacets 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, the previous one wasn't confirmed for the same reason - over 30 days. --Hamsacharya dan 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I'm about to go to bed (argh, it's 4:30am!) but if you still haven't found anything by tommorow I can ask around for help on IRC, there is usually someone there willing to help... Goodnight! Sfacets 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're at a stand still... --Hamsacharya dan 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's just vandalized the YGS page again. I posted this: [15]. Arrghh.. --Hamsacharya dan 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Teresa

Do you have any thoughts on what remains to be done to get the article on Mother Teresa us to Good Article status? Majoreditor 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could submit it to Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates for it to be reviewed by an uninterested third-party who will rate it per Wikipedia:What is a good article? and suggest improvements. I think it is very feasible to get the article to standard, however I feel it maybe lacking in sources and still contains a few unverified claims... but this is easily amended. Sfacets 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRMs versus cults

Are cults a subset of NRMs? (For the sake of argument, I mean by "cults" those groups that are commonly regarded as such.) You might say religious cults are a subset...and yet, some religious cults are not "new" (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses). And non-religious cults are not at all a subset of NRMs, and these nonreligious cults are frequently portrayed in TV satires, crime fiction, etc., and produce literature of their own, so they definitely should be (and are) part of this article. How do you suggest this be phrased in the subheading? Maybe my question should be in the cults in literature discussion page, but I ended up here.Dking 03:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God - Apollo

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in God. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product."

Why do you consider this an inappropriate link? The link is to one person's opinion, one who has had a vision from Apollo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laticss (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Which link are you referring to? Sfacets 04:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not signing - I'm pretty new to Wikipedia http://thelastmessenger.com/apollo.html Laticss

Maybe I was wrong to flag it as inappropriate, however it is a non-generic link which has been included in an ambiguous article... many links to various beliefs are posted daily to the same article, so it is important that we keep non-generic links out of the article. The link may have a place on the Apollo however. Sfacets 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is where I put the link originally. Are you suggesting that I add the link again? Laticss

Hope you don't think...

...that I'm trying to edit-war with you on George W. Bush. I was just making some extra changes after the edit you disagreed with, and each time I did that it reverted your reversion. Sorry! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah that's cool - I just saw that you were removing a lot of content, and so my suggestion would be to first discuss it on the discussion page, otherwise it becomes extremely difficult to re-insert if there are objections to it's removal later. (Don't have any issue personally). Sfacets 01:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Anandamoyi Ma

The article on Sri Anandamoyi Ma is in serious shambles. Help wanted. Aditya Kabir 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

I think they may have already discussed everything you are requesting in the discussion archives, did yah try checking there first before requesting all this citation? Just a guess on my part (they have a huge archive of discussion) (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not vandalism. Referring to objectivism as a cult---when it contains no religious content---is libel. Your quote does not even consider the fact that Rothbard was a repudiated friend; a person with a grudge is not an objective source. Frankly, I was protecting wikipedia from liability. I will be informing ARI of this listing.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfacets&oldid=117056739"